I think blacktop paving contributes to GW.  I think this every time I cross a 
parking lot in summer.  We should rip it all up, especially in cities where 
there is so much of it.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mercedes [mailto:mercedes-boun...@okiebenz.com] On Behalf Of
> Meade Dillon via Mercedes
> Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2015 4:26 PM
> To: Mercedes <mercedes@okiebenz.com>
> Cc: Meade Dillon <dillonm...@gmail.com>
> Subject: [MBZ] OT More NOAA bias toward Global Warming
> A little something to liven up the list!
> http://www.realclearpolicy.com/blog/2015/08/20/the_latest_climate_kerfuffl
> e_1397.html
> August 20, 2015The Latest Climate Kerfuffle*By* *Patrick Michaels*
> <http://www.realclearpolicy.com/authors/patrick_michaels/>
> Are political considerations superseding scientific ones at the National
> Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration?
> When confronted with an obviously broken weather station that was reading
> way too hot, they replaced the faulty sensor — but refused to adjust the bad
> readings it had already taken. And when dealing with "the pause" in global
> surface temperatures that is in its 19th year, the agency threw away 
> satellite-
> sensed sea-surface temperatures, substituting questionable data that showed
> no pause.
> The latest kerfuffle is local, not global, but happens to involve probably the
> most politically important weather station in the nation, the one at
> Washington's Reagan National Airport.
> I'll take credit for this one. I casually noticed that the monthly average
> temperatures at National were departing from their 1981-2010 averages a
> couple of degrees relative to those at Dulles — in the warm direction.
> Temperatures at National are almost always higher than those at Dulles, 19
> miles away. That's because of the well-known urban warming effect, as well as
> an elevation difference of 300 feet. But the weather systems that determine
> monthly average temperature are, in general, far too large for there to be any
> significant difference in the *departure from average* at two stations as 
> close
> together as Reagan and Dulles. Monthly data from recent decades bear this
> out — until, all at once, in January 2014 and every month thereafter, the
> departure from average at National was greater than that at Dulles.
> The average monthly difference for January 2014 through July 2015 is 2.1
> degrees Fahrenheit, which is huge when talking about things like record
> temperatures. For example, National's all-time record last May was only 0.2
> degrees above the previous record.
> Earlier this month, I sent my findings to Jason Samenow, a terrific forecaster
> who runs the *Washington Post*'s weather blog, Capital Weather Gang. He
> and his crew verified what I found and wrote up their version, giving due 
> credit
> and adding other evidence that something was very wrong at National. And, in
> remarkably quick action for a government agency, the National Weather
> Service swapped out the sensor within a week and found that the old one was
> reading 1.7 degrees too high. Close enough to 2.1, the observed difference.
> But the National Weather Service told the Capital Weather Gang that there
> will be no corrections, despite the fact that the disparity suddenly began
> 19 months ago and varied little once it began. It said correcting for the 
> error
> wouldn't be "scientifically defensible." Therefore, people can and will cite 
> the
> May record as evidence for dreaded global warming with impunity. Only a few
> weather nerds will know the truth. Over a third of this year's 37 
> 90-degree-plus
> days, which gives us a remote chance of breaking the all time record, should
> also be eliminated, putting this summer rightly back into normal territory.
> It is really politically unwise not to do a simple adjustment on these 
> obviously-
> too-hot data. With all of the claims that federal science is being biased in
> service of the president's global-warming agenda, the agency should bend
> over backwards to expunge erroneous record-high readings.
> In July, by contrast, NOAA had no problem adjusting the global temperature
> history. In that case, the method they used *guaranteed* that a growing
> warming trend would substitute for "the pause." They reported in *Science
> *that they had replaced the pause (which shows up in every analysis of
> satellite and weather balloon data) with a significant warming trend.
> Normative science says a trend is "statistically significant" if there's less 
> than a
> 5 percent probability that it would happen by chance. NOAA claimed
> significance at the 10 percent level, something no graduate student could ever
> get away with. There were several other major problems with the paper. As
> Judy Curry, a noted climate scientist at Georgia Tech, wrote, "color me
> 'unconvinced.'"
> Unfortunately, following this with the kerfuffle over the Reagan temperature
> records is only going to "convince" even more people that our government is
> blowing hot air on global warming.
> *Patrick Michaels is director of the Center for the Study of Science at the 
> Cato
> Institute.*
> -------------
> Max
> Charleston SC
> _______________________________________
> http://www.okiebenz.com
> To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/
> To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
> http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com


To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/

To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:

Reply via email to